Just curious to gauge others' opinions. I'll start by saying that I think Tasha's new options did a lot to improve the functionality of core ranger abilities. The old skills, while unique, were really underwhelming in terms of what you were actually getting at key levels compared to other classes.
That being said, I think D&D spent too much time and effort on what to do with the 5e Ranger. For me, a ranger is the Aragorn-style fighter. Perhaps some light/weak spells sprinkled in for utility/flavor, but closer to a fighter/rogue than a fighter/druid. From that, Wizard really shouldn't have had to look too far to get ideas for what could give Rangers both flavor and usefulness: The Scout Rogue subclass already has all the flavor a ranger should have gotten from the start.
Just go take a look at those abilities. Roll up a 13 scout rogue/7 ranger, or 9 rogue/11 ranger , or 15 rogue/5 ranger depending on what ranger subclass you wanna go for, and tell me that doesn't feel more like a ranger than a full 20th level ranger. Just some observations:
Survivalist: Proficiency and expertise in what are arguably the Ranger's 2 core skills. That seems like a no-brainer that, if given to the ranger's core class, immediate sets you up skill-wise in a way that distinguishes you from a run-of-the-mill fighter.
Skirmisher: You're more mobile than the average fighter in a fight. You can reposition for better melee attacks, or get your distance for next-turn's ranged attack.
Superior mobility: Obvious ranger skill (that combines deliciously with Roving from Tasha's Deft Explorer option).
Ambush Master: Another skill with obvious-ranger flavor for the hunter-trackers we are and gives rangers something other fighters don't have.
I've always been a pure class playing person. I've never enjoyed multiclassing, but I think I have to make an exception for this. As soon as I found out about the Scout subclass, I've been asking myself, "Why is the rogue a better ranger than the ranger?"
Additionally, one of the reasons I enjoy working toward 20 in a pure class is for the capstones... but the fact that 5e Ranger capstone absolutely sucks and they didn't do anything to fix it, I have 0 incentive to ride it out to 20. Seriously, wtf were they thinking? A level 20 ability that is tied to an ability score you probably didn't/can't afford to max? And even if you did max wisdom at 20, that's still only adding 5 damage or hit to ONE single attack per turn, at the cost of whatever stats you lost elsewhere...oh and don't forget it's further limited insofar as it can only be used on a Favored Enemy (at least Tasha's help this part a little, but it still involves prior set-up to and limited use) as a level 20 ability?!?! Hell, Paladin's Improved Divine Smite runs circles around that ability at level 11, and you don't even have to invest anything into it or set it up!
Ranger has always been my favorite class in almost any game, but I have not yet been able to bring myself to play one in 5e because they're so disappointing. Tasha's finally changed enough that I'm ready to give it a try. Still, I really feel they messed up by creating the scout rogue rather than using those ideas to make the ranger what it should/could be. I'll probably have to use multiclassing to band-aid it all together even despite the recent improvements. What do you guys think?
Rangers only feel bad when reading about them in a book. The scout rogue isn’t a better ranger than a ranger. A scout rogue just has expertise in 2 skills that are associated with rangers. What a ranger can do when dealing with their favored terrains, skills associated with their favored terrains, and favored enemies is untouchable by a rogue. A rogue gets a few points more on a die roll for 2 skills. That’s it. The ranger gets power from their spell list. Their ranger abilities, their damage output, their stealth, and there general effect on the game comes from their spells. When you see something that the ranger is lacking, in general or compared to another class, you’ll find the answer in a spell or two from their spell list. Tasha’s has given good options to those that truly dislike the base ranger features, for whatever reason. It turns the ranger into more of a combat encounter, less open ended, and easy to understand set of class abilities.
The Ranger is perfectly fine for what it does. Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy allows you to specialize in a terrain/enemy, making you far better at traveling them than any scout. If you want to generalize, then Tasha's will give you that expertise and your now just as good as a Scout.
"Perhaps some light/weak spells sprinkled in for utility/flavor, but closer to a fighter/rogue than a fighter/druid."
True that it definitely is more fighter/druid than fighter/rogue, due to the fact it gets almost all of its power though spells & mostly magic-related subclass. However you can always re-flavor hunter's mark and the such to be nonmagical, and subclasses such as Hunter or Monster Hunter do exist.
The capstone is a little disappointing, +5 damage is kind of terrible for a level 20 ability, and +5 to attack rolls is better but not too great compared to other capstones. Made even worse by the fact you might never even see a favored enemy if you go the PHB route. So yeah it's a okay capstone to ensure you never miss, but it's only "eh", and when combined with a ton of late-game situational at best features, it makes late-game rangers very disappointing to play.
With their 5th level spells and 15th level subclass feature, at least they are still effective when played well, but you probably would be better off going at least 3 levels into rogue.
Edit: I feel like Ranger going Fighter/Druid is a lot better than if it went Fighter/Rogue. Since Fighter/Rogue is already a very good and easy multiclass, so that niche doesn't need to be filled, meanwhile getting a proper Fighter/Druid that focuses on spellcasting rather than wildshape is... awkward.
So for starters: It appears you are a skills Ranger fan. There are a lot of you whose vision of the Ranger is based on its skills as woodsmen, not its spells. But you are a subset. You must also be in a campaign/have a DM that does not let you fully utilize your favored terrain bonuses (functionally expertise in every Wis, Int you are proficient in), or just don't frequent outside or your terrain much. There are still a lot of you. In your terrain a Ranger exceeds a Scout in likely everything but Stealth, and a Rogue all the way back to 2e has always been better at stealth if they wanted to be.
It is my recent belief that the big mistake was giving the Scout expertise in both "Ranger" skills without prior proficiency at level 3, not a problem with the Ranger.
No other Thief subclass gets 2 more expertise skills at 3rd level.
Like the others who get skills at that level they should have been given proficiency at 3 and then had to wait until level 6 to choose to put expertise in them.
So I propose the problem is less with the Ranger being underpowered, and more with the Scout being overpowered at too early of a level. At level 3 going from 0 to expertise in two skills makes no sense and is overpowered even compared to other rogues.
In general 5e has an expertise problem. Druids should be able to naturally get expertise in Nature as part of their progression, Wizards Arcana, Barbarians Athletics. EVERY class should get an early level ability to take one skill to expertise. A Scout Rogue should not be the only native subclass to have expertise in Nature.
This forum is full of people discussing the merits of the Ranger. Most people agree that the ranger is varying degrees of problematic but there are a handful of people that love the Ranger. The reality is if you play the ranger you'll have fun but you might go an entire campaign never using some of their abilities.
If you want to play a ranger, stop reading this message and go have fun. If you're on the fence, I'll compare the Ranger to the Paladin to show some of the ways that the ranger is problematic. They're both half casters / half fighters and I think the closest comparison. Comparing to the paladin will show you just how meh the base kit is in comparison.
Very similar first level. Paladins get plate, Divine Sense (ability to sense certain creatures), and a healing ability. Rangers get 2 situational out of combat abilities that are kinda crappy. The ones in Tasha's are an upgrade but even those are mediocre. The paladins have a stronger level 1.
Both get a fighting style although they choose from different lists. They also get 2 spell slots. The major difference here is that rangers only know 2 spells whereas the paladin knows all of their spells (and it's a much, much bigger list). In addition, the paladin gets to turn those spell slots into smites. Paladins have a stronger level 2.
Both pick their subclasses at level 3. Paladins have such a strong base kit but their subclasses don't get a ton at level 3. They get two channel divinity options and some added spells. Rangers actually get a fair amount at level 3 from their subclass. The subclasses from the PHB honestly suck but the rest are good. The pet options from Tasha's turned the Beast Master from awful to pretty good. The paladins become immune to disease (meh) while the rangers get some ability that is basically a worse version of Divine sense. The Paladins get a lot out of their subclasses but it's not front loaded like the ranger.
Both get an ASI
Both get extra attack. They have the same number of spell slots. Rangers by this point know 4 spells while the Paladin knows 23 plus.
Paladins get Aura of Protection, one of the best defensive abilities in the game. They get to add their CHA modifier to all their saving throws. Anyone nearby also gets this benefit. Rangers get another favored enemy and terrain or whatever Tasha's gives.
Both get archetype features. Paladins typically get another aura. These features are all pretty impactful. Some of the level 7 ranger subclass features are good, some are bad.
ASIs.
Both now get level 3 spells. Paladins know dozens of spells, ranger knows 6.
Lets fast forward to 20. Ranger's ability is actually underrated, when you can use it. Every round you get to add your wisdom modifier to the attack modifier (potentially turning a miss into a hit) or damage. However, the PHB makes favored enemy so... stupid... specific that you'll rarely actually get to use this ability. The Tasha's optional features means you can use this more, but at the cost of your concentration. Most of the good ranger spells are concentration so this hits pretty hard. Compare that to the paladin who gets one of the strongest capstones in the game.
All that said, Rangers are fun. Mechanically they have some problems (arguably more than any other class) but you'll enjoy playing one either way. I think my next character will be a Beast Master Ranger using Tasha's optional features.
On the flip side, many times the battle is mostly over by the time the paladin gets within melee range of the enemy. Also, then paladin needs the flexibility in their spell casting as most of it is either smite, damage, or healing. Other than the spell slot progression l, I’m not sure the paladin is a good comparison of the ranger.
On the flip side, many times the battle is mostly over by the time the paladin gets within melee range of the enemy.
An encounter that is mostly over before any melee can get in range is a pretty rare occurrence that I think points to the encounter being poorly designed. Some encounters will be better for archer archetypes but some encounters will be difficult. If there are large numbers of enemies the ranger might have trouble maintaining distance to avoid attacking at disadvantage. Zephyr Strike is a generally a good way to maintain distance though.
Also, then paladin needs the flexibility in their spell casting as most of it is either smite, damage, or healing. Other than the spell slot progression l, I’m not sure the paladin is a good comparison of the ranger.
The ranger needs spell slots for healing or damage as well. This is something that is a boon to both the Ranger and the Paladin; versatility. I think it's a near perfect comparison. Both are martial combatants that are also half casters capable of healing. The Ranger is occasionally referred to as the nature paladin.
The reality is the paladin is a better tank because of heavy armor, better healer because of Lay on Hands (especially since the healing spirit nerf), better spellcaster because of the dramatically more spells known, at least comparable damage dealer (arguably better with smite), and has large out of combat impact with being a charisma based character. The Ranger is a far stronger ranged damage dealer (that is a pretty big deal in some encounters) and has out of combat impact in exploration. However, I think the social pillar tends to get more use (for right or wrong) than the exploration pillar. The Paladin is multi attribute dependent which is a knock against it. So is the ranger though. However, I think rangers typically rely less on Wisdom than the Paladin does on Charisma.
None of this is to say I dislike the ranger. I do think it has it's issues though and in comparison to it's most comparable class, the paladin, is lacking. The paladin is such a strong class though that it might not be fair to the ranger.
On the flip side, many times the battle is mostly over by the time the paladin gets within melee range of the enemy. Also, then paladin needs the flexibility in their spell casting as most of it is either smite, damage, or healing. Other than the spell slot progression l, I’m not sure the paladin is a good comparison of the ranger.
No, the paladin isn't a good comparison nor is the fighter.
There is my view on ranger:
The idea that Ranger is a utility-swiss knife-fighting class is great. However, it was poorly executed.
It isn't under power
It isn't unfun to play as a ranger
It has some poor design on both the early game and late game. In other words, yes, they missed the mark.
Tash fixes the poor design in the early game and beastmaster issue.
A lot of ranger's late-game feature and spell power doesn't bring enough value. This makes the muti-class' opportunity cost much cheaper for the ranger. Ranger is always better off when muti-class. This may not be a bad thing but it is a sign of poor design.
I agree with Frozen_Fruit here on all his points. I'll go though each one with my own (not really) unique perspective and explain why I agree with them.
The idea that Ranger is a utility-swiss knife-fighting class is great. However, it was poorly executed.
Ranger has a very great spell list with a lot of utility and swiss-knives for combat- except Ranger also has one of the least spells known even including third-castors.
It isn't under power
Even PHB Beastmaster has been shown to be able to keep up in terms of dps, it's not underpowered- however picking the best spells and maximizing your subclass features can prove difficult to many which makes it appears weaker.
It isn't unfun to play as a ranger
Ranger subclasses tend to have great flavor, and Favored Terrain/Enemy allowing you to specialize (or generalize with Tasha's) in a area/type of enemy has great roleplay & background potential. Besides they are a spell castor, that alone grants them a lot of flavor in combat. So it can be fun role-play wise. Combat-wise fun basically same opinion as above.
It has some poor design on both the early game and late game. In other words, yes, they missed the mark.
Most of the complaints is that early-game it forces you to specialize in a enemy/terrain, which is by definition situational. Tasha fixes that of course.
The late game features I do wish they were a bit better,
Hide in Plain Sight is just a worse Pass Without Trace. At least it doesn't use a spell slot and comes with a NE Improvement. Still, in most combats your not going to be using Hide in Plain Sight nor NE, so it feels like you just leveled up and gained nothing. (No increased spell slots, no increased prof bonus, just a bit of hp and some features you can sometimes use)
Vanish isn't very exciting, effective but very boring. At least you can use it every combat and comes with a FE improvement
Feral Sense is a little weird, I would of preferred the rogue's blind-sense. With Feral Sense it seems enemies you can't see have advantage to hit you, you just roll normally to hit them. Also it comes with nothing else, so in 99% of combats a level 17 and level 18 ranger are the exact same except with a bit more hp.
Foe Slayer isn't very exciting, effective but very boring. Assuming you only fight your Favored Enemy anyways. Adding to Hit to ensure that every attack hits is always nice, and if all attacks hit you can add +5 to the last hit. Still boring.
You see a theme here? All of these work, but are very boring and you level up several times without gaining anything in most combats. Ranger still keeps up in terms of DPS and such, but the idea that you can level up and gain basically nothing is super bad.
Tash fixes the poor design in the early game and beastmaster issue.
Yep. Beastmaster is much more fun to play now, and no more having to cherry-pick the best animal or be useless.
A lot of ranger's late-game feature and spell power doesn't bring enough value. This makes the muti-class' opportunity cost much cheaper for the ranger. Ranger is always better off when muti-class. This may not be a bad thing but it is a sign of poor design.
I sort of already covered this. I wouldn't say they are always better off, some campaigns might see more use of ambushes and the such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Levels 3-10 the PHB Beast Master will actually be doing less damage if they use their pet attacks in most if not all situations. From levels 11-20 the damage is pretty competitive but the pet was so extremely squishy that it was easy for them to die. These were the major issues with the PHB Beast Master. Tasha's addressed both of these things and now it's arguably one of the strongest Ranger subclasses.
No, the paladin isn't a good comparison nor is the fighter.
While I totally agree that making a comparison to the Fighter isn't good, I don't think I will understand why some people will say that paladins aren't a good comparison. They're both half-casters with a set of magical-but-not-spell features and fighting styles that pretty much define the class. Just because one is a healy tank and the other a nature-y skirmisher doesn't mean we can't compare the parts they do have in common
Paladins are strongly defined by their healing traits (lay on hands), their smites, their Channel Divinity options and their auras. Their spells and higher level options build off these earlier level features. This creates a synergetic effect that builds off each other and makes the paladin a good class. Paladins are also known for their animal friends (mounts) and can make a good use of CHA + Persuasion.
Rangers, meanwhile, are supposed to be strongly defined the idea of being a stealthy (hide in plain sight, vanish) hunter (Favored Foe / Hunter's Mark) and explorer (the terrain, primeval awareness). Rangers likewise are known for animal friends (beast companions) and can make good use of WIS + Insight.
There's enough points of comparison without touching on their combat roles (or exploration roles) that we can realistically discuss.
Paladin despite doing something similar is a really bad comparison to most rangers. They are doing two different jobs in two different ways. one tends to be heavily dexterity based and more of a skirmisher/dps'er. The other tends to be a heavily armored but slower moving tank type character. So they tend to have vastly different purposes.
Also bringing up the large number of spells that the paladin has access to doesn't help as much or give them as much advantage as it might look at a glance on paper when most paladin's rarely bother to cast their spells. Some players don't even know most if any of the spells that they actually get for it and pretty much all their spell slots tend to go to uses of their Smite Ability. on top of that Paladin's have to prepare spells from that list meaning that without pre-thought out preparation most of that large number of spells is actually useless to them because of that as well.
Hide in Plain Sight and Pass Without Trace aren't entirely being evaluated fairly. Your talking about a spell that takes a spell slot to cast and has a duration as well as concentration requirements vs. an ability the Ranger can employ by spending a little time but use in an effectively indefinite manner. They may do something similar but most judgements are again made at an "at a glance" level rather than the fine details that might make one useful over the other. Rangers make powerful long term hidden watchmen, particularly in their prefered environments and without magical aura's to give them away once they get this ability. It's something I've had players employ a couple of times and I've used several times myself as a DM to either set up specific location encounters or as powerful flavor when it came to certain kinds of settings and interactions. The nature's veil option is much more short term but really emphasizes the pop up anywhere idea behind Rangers in many of their forms quite well.
And I'm sorry. Aragorn may be called a Ranger. But he's a really bad Ranger in most senses of the idea. The way that he's portrayed his stealth is never the greatest. His nature abilities are limited past tracking which others are also able to do. He has very little beast handling ability, His fighting is all very blunt and strength based for the most part. He also shows far more capability in Intellect based Knowledges like Arcana, history, and the like to do most of what he does. So he's a much better Representation of a Fighter that Intelligently learns about and understands his enemies and meets them face to face on the battle field more than anything to do with Rangers. Legolas or the Hunter from Lake Town are actually far better examples of Ranger characters in lord of the Rings. Though the Hunter is kind of glossed over in the books and everything Legolas does is mostly passed off as "because elf" rather than learned class skills. Despite the fact that not all elves are actually shown to be as "skilled" in such things or in the same ways that as Legolas is. Then again We are also talking about a Series where when you really dig into it, Some of their Wizards might be better classed as Druids than actual Wizards as well. But all are kept under the Wizard name and ALL Wizards tend to use far less actual magic than they are supposedly capable of in most cases.
Paladin despite doing something similar is a really bad comparison to most rangers. They are doing two different jobs in two different ways. one tends to be heavily dexterity based and more of a skirmisher/dps'er. The other tends to be a heavily armored but slower moving tank type character. So they tend to have vastly different purposes.
I admitted that they had different combat roles (healy tank vs natury skirmisher), but that doesn't explain why we can't compare the parts they do have in common. And there is a lot they share in common. Combat roles are not the whole of characters.
Plus, its called compare and contrast for a reason. The contrast parts are just as important when doing a comparison.
And I'm sorry. Aragorn may be called a Ranger. But he's a really bad Ranger in most senses of the idea.
Aragorn isn't a ranger. Aragorn is a paladin. He's got his holy sword, he's got healing (lay-on-) hands, he's a leader of armies instead of a solitary hunter in the wilderness. Strider was a ranger, but we never really get to see a lot of Strider in the books. We're told he does the ranger stuff by others, but we never really get to see him actually do it.
The Ranger class does draw inspiration from the descriptions of what Strider does, but we never actually see him do it.
Paladin despite doing something similar is a really bad comparison to most rangers. They are doing two different jobs in two different ways. one tends to be heavily dexterity based and more of a skirmisher/dps'er. The other tends to be a heavily armored but slower moving tank type character. So they tend to have vastly different purposes.
I admitted that they had different combat roles (healy tank vs natury skirmisher), but that doesn't explain why we can't compare the parts they do have in common. And there is a lot they share in common. Combat roles are not the whole of characters.
Plus, its called compare and contrast for a reason. The contrast parts are just as important when doing a comparison.
And I'm sorry. Aragorn may be called a Ranger. But he's a really bad Ranger in most senses of the idea.
Aragorn isn't a ranger. Aragorn is a paladin. He's got his holy sword, he's got healing (lay-on-) hands, he's a leader of armies instead of a solitary hunter in the wilderness. Strider was a ranger, but we never really get to see a lot of Strider in the books. We're told he does the ranger stuff by others, but we never really get to see him actually do it.
The Ranger class does draw inspiration from the descriptions of what Strider does, but we never actually see him do it.
Strider is another name for Aragorn. So yes. We do see him in action in the books.
Paladin despite doing something similar is a really bad comparison to most rangers. They are doing two different jobs in two different ways. one tends to be heavily dexterity based and more of a skirmisher/dps'er. The other tends to be a heavily armored but slower moving tank type character. So they tend to have vastly different purposes.
They do different things, but they do them in similar ways. The comparison makes sense for all the reasons that have been pointed out. It holds as much water as comparing sorcerers to wizards or druids to clerics. They have enough in common that you can make the comparison.
Also bringing up the large number of spells that the paladin has access to doesn't help as much or give them as much advantage as it might look at a glance on paper when most paladin's rarely bother to cast their spells. Some players don't even know most if any of the spells that they actually get for it and pretty much all their spell slots tend to go to uses of their Smite Ability. on top of that Paladin's have to prepare spells from that list meaning that without pre-thought out preparation most of that large number of spells is actually useless to them because of that as well.
Just because some players don't know their spell lists or choose to cast spells doesn't mean the features and options aren't still very good. Honestly, you're describing pretty crappy players. Options are never useless even if a player decides to ignore them. Rangers get a small number of spells known from a smaller list while paladins prepare more spells (unless they have a really bad charisma score) from a comparatively very large list and know all of them. I also find it kinda funny you say you can't compare the two classes and then compare the two classes.
Hide in Plain Sight and Pass Without Trace aren't entirely being evaluated fairly. Your talking about a spell that takes a spell slot to cast and has a duration as well as concentration requirements vs. an ability the Ranger can employ by spending a little time but use in an effectively indefinite manner. They may do something similar but most judgements are again made at an "at a glance" level rather than the fine details that might make one useful over the other. Rangers make powerful long term hidden watchmen, particularly in their prefered environments and without magical aura's to give them away once they get this ability. It's something I've had players employ a couple of times and I've used several times myself as a DM to either set up specific location encounters or as powerful flavor when it came to certain kinds of settings and interactions. The nature's veil option is much more short term but really emphasizes the pop up anywhere idea behind Rangers in many of their forms quite well.
I agree. It's not useless but it is niche. Pass Without Trace is generally a much, much better skill than Hide in Plain Sight is an ability. They do stack, as far as I can tell, and Hide in Plain Sight does have some advantages, but overall it's overly niche, just like the entire PHB ranger kit. Honestly it feels like it was made by someone other than the person who made the rest of the classes.
Strider is another name for Aragorn. So yes. We do see him in action in the books.
I was separating the names to exagerate a point. Despite being told by others that he's a ranger, Aragorn's story, abilities and actions are all those of a paladin. He's LotR's version of King Arthur, complete with his own magic sword that proves his ancestry. His background as Strider sounds kind of ranger-like, but he never acts like one once he joins the party.
He's nothing like the modern ranger you see in any contemporary fantasy story or game.
Its not Aragorn's fault. All the ribbon abilities he gets at first level made the survival part of the story boring and easy, so the DM just skipped over it after the first few adventures.
Its not Aragorn's fault. All the ribbon abilities he gets at first level made the survival part of the story boring and easy, so the DM just skipped over it after the first few adventures.
The First Few adventures where the Survival and Nature part is basically the bulk of the story? That's a bad DM and not exactly Tolkien's style.
A paladin's abilities can be used very often. Very true. What fun. A paladin is completely regulated to melee combat for their best stuff (smite, lay on hands, most spells), typically dumps dexterity so acts farther in the initiative order, and does little other than hurt and heal. Their proficiency in 2 social skills is alright, but this is also something a rogue can do much better. That's what rogues do, everyone. Saying a rogue can do most any skill better than some other class or subclass is silly. That's half of what the rogue class does. Skills and sneak attacks. Everything the ranger is and does is situational. But these situations come up often as a group, make a huge impact when they do, and are very fun to play in additional to be very effective. The spell feather fall is situational. These arguments for the ranger is situational. Based on the player's play style and what they enjoy playing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just curious to gauge others' opinions. I'll start by saying that I think Tasha's new options did a lot to improve the functionality of core ranger abilities. The old skills, while unique, were really underwhelming in terms of what you were actually getting at key levels compared to other classes.
That being said, I think D&D spent too much time and effort on what to do with the 5e Ranger. For me, a ranger is the Aragorn-style fighter. Perhaps some light/weak spells sprinkled in for utility/flavor, but closer to a fighter/rogue than a fighter/druid. From that, Wizard really shouldn't have had to look too far to get ideas for what could give Rangers both flavor and usefulness: The Scout Rogue subclass already has all the flavor a ranger should have gotten from the start.
Just go take a look at those abilities. Roll up a 13 scout rogue/7 ranger, or 9 rogue/11 ranger , or 15 rogue/5 ranger depending on what ranger subclass you wanna go for, and tell me that doesn't feel more like a ranger than a full 20th level ranger. Just some observations:
Survivalist: Proficiency and expertise in what are arguably the Ranger's 2 core skills. That seems like a no-brainer that, if given to the ranger's core class, immediate sets you up skill-wise in a way that distinguishes you from a run-of-the-mill fighter.
Skirmisher: You're more mobile than the average fighter in a fight. You can reposition for better melee attacks, or get your distance for next-turn's ranged attack.
Superior mobility: Obvious ranger skill (that combines deliciously with Roving from Tasha's Deft Explorer option).
Ambush Master: Another skill with obvious-ranger flavor for the hunter-trackers we are and gives rangers something other fighters don't have.
I've always been a pure class playing person. I've never enjoyed multiclassing, but I think I have to make an exception for this. As soon as I found out about the Scout subclass, I've been asking myself, "Why is the rogue a better ranger than the ranger?"
Additionally, one of the reasons I enjoy working toward 20 in a pure class is for the capstones... but the fact that 5e Ranger capstone absolutely sucks and they didn't do anything to fix it, I have 0 incentive to ride it out to 20. Seriously, wtf were they thinking? A level 20 ability that is tied to an ability score you probably didn't/can't afford to max? And even if you did max wisdom at 20, that's still only adding 5 damage or hit to ONE single attack per turn, at the cost of whatever stats you lost elsewhere...oh and don't forget it's further limited insofar as it can only be used on a Favored Enemy (at least Tasha's help this part a little, but it still involves prior set-up to and limited use) as a level 20 ability?!?! Hell, Paladin's Improved Divine Smite runs circles around that ability at level 11, and you don't even have to invest anything into it or set it up!
Ranger has always been my favorite class in almost any game, but I have not yet been able to bring myself to play one in 5e because they're so disappointing. Tasha's finally changed enough that I'm ready to give it a try. Still, I really feel they messed up by creating the scout rogue rather than using those ideas to make the ranger what it should/could be. I'll probably have to use multiclassing to band-aid it all together even despite the recent improvements. What do you guys think?
Rangers only feel bad when reading about them in a book. The scout rogue isn’t a better ranger than a ranger. A scout rogue just has expertise in 2 skills that are associated with rangers. What a ranger can do when dealing with their favored terrains, skills associated with their favored terrains, and favored enemies is untouchable by a rogue. A rogue gets a few points more on a die roll for 2 skills. That’s it. The ranger gets power from their spell list. Their ranger abilities, their damage output, their stealth, and there general effect on the game comes from their spells. When you see something that the ranger is lacking, in general or compared to another class, you’ll find the answer in a spell or two from their spell list. Tasha’s has given good options to those that truly dislike the base ranger features, for whatever reason. It turns the ranger into more of a combat encounter, less open ended, and easy to understand set of class abilities.
The Ranger is perfectly fine for what it does. Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy allows you to specialize in a terrain/enemy, making you far better at traveling them than any scout. If you want to generalize, then Tasha's will give you that expertise and your now just as good as a Scout.
"Perhaps some light/weak spells sprinkled in for utility/flavor, but closer to a fighter/rogue than a fighter/druid."
True that it definitely is more fighter/druid than fighter/rogue, due to the fact it gets almost all of its power though spells & mostly magic-related subclass. However you can always re-flavor hunter's mark and the such to be nonmagical, and subclasses such as Hunter or Monster Hunter do exist.
The capstone is a little disappointing, +5 damage is kind of terrible for a level 20 ability, and +5 to attack rolls is better but not too great compared to other capstones. Made even worse by the fact you might never even see a favored enemy if you go the PHB route. So yeah it's a okay capstone to ensure you never miss, but it's only "eh", and when combined with a ton of late-game situational at best features, it makes late-game rangers very disappointing to play.
With their 5th level spells and 15th level subclass feature, at least they are still effective when played well, but you probably would be better off going at least 3 levels into rogue.
Edit: I feel like Ranger going Fighter/Druid is a lot better than if it went Fighter/Rogue. Since Fighter/Rogue is already a very good and easy multiclass, so that niche doesn't need to be filled, meanwhile getting a proper Fighter/Druid that focuses on spellcasting rather than wildshape is... awkward.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
So for starters: It appears you are a skills Ranger fan. There are a lot of you whose vision of the Ranger is based on its skills as woodsmen, not its spells. But you are a subset. You must also be in a campaign/have a DM that does not let you fully utilize your favored terrain bonuses (functionally expertise in every Wis, Int you are proficient in), or just don't frequent outside or your terrain much. There are still a lot of you. In your terrain a Ranger exceeds a Scout in likely everything but Stealth, and a Rogue all the way back to 2e has always been better at stealth if they wanted to be.
It is my recent belief that the big mistake was giving the Scout expertise in both "Ranger" skills without prior proficiency at level 3, not a problem with the Ranger.
No other Thief subclass gets 2 more expertise skills at 3rd level.
Like the others who get skills at that level they should have been given proficiency at 3 and then had to wait until level 6 to choose to put expertise in them.
So I propose the problem is less with the Ranger being underpowered, and more with the Scout being overpowered at too early of a level. At level 3 going from 0 to expertise in two skills makes no sense and is overpowered even compared to other rogues.
In general 5e has an expertise problem. Druids should be able to naturally get expertise in Nature as part of their progression, Wizards Arcana, Barbarians Athletics. EVERY class should get an early level ability to take one skill to expertise. A Scout Rogue should not be the only native subclass to have expertise in Nature.
This forum is full of people discussing the merits of the Ranger. Most people agree that the ranger is varying degrees of problematic but there are a handful of people that love the Ranger. The reality is if you play the ranger you'll have fun but you might go an entire campaign never using some of their abilities.
If you want to play a ranger, stop reading this message and go have fun. If you're on the fence, I'll compare the Ranger to the Paladin to show some of the ways that the ranger is problematic. They're both half casters / half fighters and I think the closest comparison. Comparing to the paladin will show you just how meh the base kit is in comparison.
Lets fast forward to 20. Ranger's ability is actually underrated, when you can use it. Every round you get to add your wisdom modifier to the attack modifier (potentially turning a miss into a hit) or damage. However, the PHB makes favored enemy so... stupid... specific that you'll rarely actually get to use this ability. The Tasha's optional features means you can use this more, but at the cost of your concentration. Most of the good ranger spells are concentration so this hits pretty hard. Compare that to the paladin who gets one of the strongest capstones in the game.
All that said, Rangers are fun. Mechanically they have some problems (arguably more than any other class) but you'll enjoy playing one either way. I think my next character will be a Beast Master Ranger using Tasha's optional features.
On the flip side, many times the battle is mostly over by the time the paladin gets within melee range of the enemy. Also, then paladin needs the flexibility in their spell casting as most of it is either smite, damage, or healing. Other than the spell slot progression l, I’m not sure the paladin is a good comparison of the ranger.
An encounter that is mostly over before any melee can get in range is a pretty rare occurrence that I think points to the encounter being poorly designed. Some encounters will be better for archer archetypes but some encounters will be difficult. If there are large numbers of enemies the ranger might have trouble maintaining distance to avoid attacking at disadvantage. Zephyr Strike is a generally a good way to maintain distance though.
The ranger needs spell slots for healing or damage as well. This is something that is a boon to both the Ranger and the Paladin; versatility. I think it's a near perfect comparison. Both are martial combatants that are also half casters capable of healing. The Ranger is occasionally referred to as the nature paladin.
The reality is the paladin is a better tank because of heavy armor, better healer because of Lay on Hands (especially since the healing spirit nerf), better spellcaster because of the dramatically more spells known, at least comparable damage dealer (arguably better with smite), and has large out of combat impact with being a charisma based character. The Ranger is a far stronger ranged damage dealer (that is a pretty big deal in some encounters) and has out of combat impact in exploration. However, I think the social pillar tends to get more use (for right or wrong) than the exploration pillar. The Paladin is multi attribute dependent which is a knock against it. So is the ranger though. However, I think rangers typically rely less on Wisdom than the Paladin does on Charisma.
None of this is to say I dislike the ranger. I do think it has it's issues though and in comparison to it's most comparable class, the paladin, is lacking. The paladin is such a strong class though that it might not be fair to the ranger.
No, the paladin isn't a good comparison nor is the fighter.
There is my view on ranger:
I agree with Frozen_Fruit here on all his points. I'll go though each one with my own (not really) unique perspective and explain why I agree with them.
Ranger has a very great spell list with a lot of utility and swiss-knives for combat- except Ranger also has one of the least spells known even including third-castors.
Even PHB Beastmaster has been shown to be able to keep up in terms of dps, it's not underpowered- however picking the best spells and maximizing your subclass features can prove difficult to many which makes it appears weaker.
Ranger subclasses tend to have great flavor, and Favored Terrain/Enemy allowing you to specialize (or generalize with Tasha's) in a area/type of enemy has great roleplay & background potential. Besides they are a spell castor, that alone grants them a lot of flavor in combat. So it can be fun role-play wise. Combat-wise fun basically same opinion as above.
Most of the complaints is that early-game it forces you to specialize in a enemy/terrain, which is by definition situational. Tasha fixes that of course.
The late game features I do wish they were a bit better,
Hide in Plain Sight is just a worse Pass Without Trace. At least it doesn't use a spell slot and comes with a NE Improvement. Still, in most combats your not going to be using Hide in Plain Sight nor NE, so it feels like you just leveled up and gained nothing. (No increased spell slots, no increased prof bonus, just a bit of hp and some features you can sometimes use)
Vanish isn't very exciting, effective but very boring. At least you can use it every combat and comes with a FE improvement
Feral Sense is a little weird, I would of preferred the rogue's blind-sense. With Feral Sense it seems enemies you can't see have advantage to hit you, you just roll normally to hit them. Also it comes with nothing else, so in 99% of combats a level 17 and level 18 ranger are the exact same except with a bit more hp.
Foe Slayer isn't very exciting, effective but very boring. Assuming you only fight your Favored Enemy anyways. Adding to Hit to ensure that every attack hits is always nice, and if all attacks hit you can add +5 to the last hit. Still boring.
You see a theme here? All of these work, but are very boring and you level up several times without gaining anything in most combats. Ranger still keeps up in terms of DPS and such, but the idea that you can level up and gain basically nothing is super bad.
Yep. Beastmaster is much more fun to play now, and no more having to cherry-pick the best animal or be useless.
I sort of already covered this. I wouldn't say they are always better off, some campaigns might see more use of ambushes and the such.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Levels 3-10 the PHB Beast Master will actually be doing less damage if they use their pet attacks in most if not all situations. From levels 11-20 the damage is pretty competitive but the pet was so extremely squishy that it was easy for them to die. These were the major issues with the PHB Beast Master. Tasha's addressed both of these things and now it's arguably one of the strongest Ranger subclasses.
While I totally agree that making a comparison to the Fighter isn't good, I don't think I will understand why some people will say that paladins aren't a good comparison. They're both half-casters with a set of magical-but-not-spell features and fighting styles that pretty much define the class. Just because one is a healy tank and the other a nature-y skirmisher doesn't mean we can't compare the parts they do have in common
Paladins are strongly defined by their healing traits (lay on hands), their smites, their Channel Divinity options and their auras. Their spells and higher level options build off these earlier level features. This creates a synergetic effect that builds off each other and makes the paladin a good class. Paladins are also known for their animal friends (mounts) and can make a good use of CHA + Persuasion.
Rangers, meanwhile, are supposed to be strongly defined the idea of being a stealthy (hide in plain sight, vanish) hunter (Favored Foe / Hunter's Mark) and explorer (the terrain, primeval awareness). Rangers likewise are known for animal friends (beast companions) and can make good use of WIS + Insight.
There's enough points of comparison without touching on their combat roles (or exploration roles) that we can realistically discuss.
Paladin despite doing something similar is a really bad comparison to most rangers. They are doing two different jobs in two different ways. one tends to be heavily dexterity based and more of a skirmisher/dps'er. The other tends to be a heavily armored but slower moving tank type character. So they tend to have vastly different purposes.
Also bringing up the large number of spells that the paladin has access to doesn't help as much or give them as much advantage as it might look at a glance on paper when most paladin's rarely bother to cast their spells. Some players don't even know most if any of the spells that they actually get for it and pretty much all their spell slots tend to go to uses of their Smite Ability. on top of that Paladin's have to prepare spells from that list meaning that without pre-thought out preparation most of that large number of spells is actually useless to them because of that as well.
Hide in Plain Sight and Pass Without Trace aren't entirely being evaluated fairly. Your talking about a spell that takes a spell slot to cast and has a duration as well as concentration requirements vs. an ability the Ranger can employ by spending a little time but use in an effectively indefinite manner. They may do something similar but most judgements are again made at an "at a glance" level rather than the fine details that might make one useful over the other. Rangers make powerful long term hidden watchmen, particularly in their prefered environments and without magical aura's to give them away once they get this ability. It's something I've had players employ a couple of times and I've used several times myself as a DM to either set up specific location encounters or as powerful flavor when it came to certain kinds of settings and interactions. The nature's veil option is much more short term but really emphasizes the pop up anywhere idea behind Rangers in many of their forms quite well.
And I'm sorry. Aragorn may be called a Ranger. But he's a really bad Ranger in most senses of the idea. The way that he's portrayed his stealth is never the greatest. His nature abilities are limited past tracking which others are also able to do. He has very little beast handling ability, His fighting is all very blunt and strength based for the most part. He also shows far more capability in Intellect based Knowledges like Arcana, history, and the like to do most of what he does. So he's a much better Representation of a Fighter that Intelligently learns about and understands his enemies and meets them face to face on the battle field more than anything to do with Rangers. Legolas or the Hunter from Lake Town are actually far better examples of Ranger characters in lord of the Rings. Though the Hunter is kind of glossed over in the books and everything Legolas does is mostly passed off as "because elf" rather than learned class skills. Despite the fact that not all elves are actually shown to be as "skilled" in such things or in the same ways that as Legolas is. Then again We are also talking about a Series where when you really dig into it, Some of their Wizards might be better classed as Druids than actual Wizards as well. But all are kept under the Wizard name and ALL Wizards tend to use far less actual magic than they are supposedly capable of in most cases.
I admitted that they had different combat roles (healy tank vs natury skirmisher), but that doesn't explain why we can't compare the parts they do have in common. And there is a lot they share in common. Combat roles are not the whole of characters.
Plus, its called compare and contrast for a reason. The contrast parts are just as important when doing a comparison.
Aragorn isn't a ranger. Aragorn is a paladin. He's got his holy sword, he's got healing (lay-on-) hands, he's a leader of armies instead of a solitary hunter in the wilderness. Strider was a ranger, but we never really get to see a lot of Strider in the books. We're told he does the ranger stuff by others, but we never really get to see him actually do it.
The Ranger class does draw inspiration from the descriptions of what Strider does, but we never actually see him do it.
Strider is another name for Aragorn. So yes. We do see him in action in the books.
They do different things, but they do them in similar ways. The comparison makes sense for all the reasons that have been pointed out. It holds as much water as comparing sorcerers to wizards or druids to clerics. They have enough in common that you can make the comparison.
Just because some players don't know their spell lists or choose to cast spells doesn't mean the features and options aren't still very good. Honestly, you're describing pretty crappy players. Options are never useless even if a player decides to ignore them. Rangers get a small number of spells known from a smaller list while paladins prepare more spells (unless they have a really bad charisma score) from a comparatively very large list and know all of them. I also find it kinda funny you say you can't compare the two classes and then compare the two classes.
I agree. It's not useless but it is niche. Pass Without Trace is generally a much, much better skill than Hide in Plain Sight is an ability. They do stack, as far as I can tell, and Hide in Plain Sight does have some advantages, but overall it's overly niche, just like the entire PHB ranger kit. Honestly it feels like it was made by someone other than the person who made the rest of the classes.
I was separating the names to exagerate a point. Despite being told by others that he's a ranger, Aragorn's story, abilities and actions are all those of a paladin. He's LotR's version of King Arthur, complete with his own magic sword that proves his ancestry. His background as Strider sounds kind of ranger-like, but he never acts like one once he joins the party.
He's nothing like the modern ranger you see in any contemporary fantasy story or game.
Its not Aragorn's fault. All the ribbon abilities he gets at first level made the survival part of the story boring and easy, so the DM just skipped over it after the first few adventures.
The First Few adventures where the Survival and Nature part is basically the bulk of the story? That's a bad DM and not exactly Tolkien's style.
A paladin's abilities can be used very often. Very true. What fun. A paladin is completely regulated to melee combat for their best stuff (smite, lay on hands, most spells), typically dumps dexterity so acts farther in the initiative order, and does little other than hurt and heal. Their proficiency in 2 social skills is alright, but this is also something a rogue can do much better. That's what rogues do, everyone. Saying a rogue can do most any skill better than some other class or subclass is silly. That's half of what the rogue class does. Skills and sneak attacks. Everything the ranger is and does is situational. But these situations come up often as a group, make a huge impact when they do, and are very fun to play in additional to be very effective. The spell feather fall is situational. These arguments for the ranger is situational. Based on the player's play style and what they enjoy playing.